July 1, 2008
-
Castle Doctrine
This story caught my eye. Essentially what happened was Mr. Horn witnessed two men breaking into a neighbor's house. He did what any reasonable person would have done, He called 911. Mr. Horn gave a detailed explanation of what he was witnessing and a description of the individuals.
Now what is at issues is what followed. Mr. Horn went outside despite being instructed not to by the 911 dispatcher. Mr. Horn then warned the two burglars to stop, when they did not comply he shot them. If you listen to the 911 tapes that were released you hear Mr. Horn fire a total of three shots, killing both men.
The state of Texas has a "Castle Doctrine" that was put in place several years ago. This law essentially says you can shoot first and ask questions later whenever you feel there is a threat to life or property. Furthermore, it does not place an obligation to retreat like similar laws in other states.
Now here's the question: "Was he justified?"
I would say that he was based on the facts of the case, and what you hear on the 911 tapes. I would have done the same (only I would do my shooting from a distance with a scoped rifle). I would hope that my neighbors right now would do the same, because I would do the same for them.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think Mr. Horn overstepped the law or was justified under the law? Do you think he should have been indicted or do you think it was right to acquit him?
Comments (8)
I find the Castle Doctrine to be directly in conflict with the 8th Amendment of the Constitution "Excessive Punishment".
The dude shot those guys in the back. I don't think that breaking, entering, and fleeing should be a capital offense.
My answer: it depends. ;p Need more details. It's hard to say what happened between the "stop!" and the gunshots.
8th amendment states "cruel and unusual" punishment... not "excessive"
a) that's a normative statement
b) that applies to the punitive stage in determining a convicted person's sentencing.
when I first heard the 911 tapes on the radio, I actually laughed. that was my initial reaction.
since i'm not close to the case, the way i personally feel is that a) mr. horn is justified based on the circumstances but more importantly, texas law. b) good for him!
makes you think twice if you're a criminal. what business does anyone have breaking into someone else's home? what if this was a serial rapist? even then, those are just details. trying to moralize degrees of criminal behavior is missing the point at hand.
i think individual citizens should rise up to defend themselves, their property and their neighbors under extenuating circumstances. we don't want to just shoot people up for no reason. but when, ever, is breaking into someone's home ever justifiable and done with good intent? it's not an issue of whether punishment fits the crime. this never went to court. it's measures put in place that allows citizens to stop an alleged criminal in his tracks. ideally, you'd wish superman flew in there and tied up the criminals against a tree in a nano-second and wait for the cops to arrive. let's be real here. a crime is taking place and mr. horn stopped it. end of story.
details: you know what makes me sad. the fact that the two criminals were illegal aliens. definitely doesn't garner much sympathy. it doesn't help that one of them was also on parole for a drug charge. you're never pleased or satisfied with having to use deadly force. that's a tragedy. but i think the frustration stems from the government's failure to allow those two criminals to remain in this country in the first place, that they can roam free to prey on ordinary american citizens. mr. horn should have never been placed in the position he was in, but his government failed him. those two also set foot on mr. horn's property. mr. horn had every right to be there and accost those men. still a sad ending for those two men.
"since i'm not close to the case, the way i personally feel is that a) mr. horn is justified based on the circumstances but more importantly, texas law."
the writer of that law said that mr. horn is not justified here.
apparently, for better or worse, it's a broad interpretation of that law.
i think the two police tape interviews shed the most light on this case; it shapes some of the basis for why i feel mr. horn was justified.
mr. horn didn't have to put himself in the situation he did but it's his every right to do so and he's an old man whose weapon of defense was a shotgun. maybe a young, athletic green beret with a small caliber handgun could have 'subdued' the two men until the cops arrived. the point is, mr. horn had a right to be there, those two men did not AND they were committing a crime. it's his neighbors house this week, maybe it's his house next week. mr. horn, in his limited ability, did what he had to do to protect his livelihood and his neighbor's livelihood. it's still a tragedy two men had to die and mr. horn will have to live with that on his conscience. but what if mr. horn was overtaken and killed by these two men? regardless, he was granted a no-bill by a grand jury.
better rethink/rewrite castle doctrine:
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
those two men at some point came onto mr. horn's property. while mr. horn may have put himself in harm's way by coming outdoors, that's hardly provocation. it's his property.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1056283-1,00.html
Comments are closed.